13
LEADERSHIP AND
ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES
CHAPTER OUTLINE
I.
Personal Attributes and Organizational Outcomes
II.
Leader Behavior and Organizational Outcomes
A.
The Ohio State University Perspective
B.
The Managerial Grid
III.
Situational Variables and Organizational Outcomes
A. Situational Leadership Theory
B. Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory
C. Path-Goal Theory of Leadership
D. The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness
IV.
University of Michigan Perspective
V.
Summary
VI.
Assess Your Understanding
223
Leadership and Organizational Outcomes
The previous chapter presented the argument that leadership is a form of interpersonal influence and, therefore, the concepts
that apply to interpersonal exchange apply equally to the leader-follower interaction. However, it may be that we need to know
much more about leadership than this. Are there other ways to view leadership that can provide tools for improving our
personal leadership capabilities? Is there anything we were born with that makes us better leaders? What are the relevant
individual and environmental factors which help explain the leadership process? In this chapter, we will survey the major
theories and concepts in the area of leadership to address these and other important questions.
In our analysis of the study of leadership in Chapter 1, we pointed out that although some early writers like
225
Carlyle, Marx, and Engels espoused various ph'losophical views of the origin of leadership, truly scientific inquiry into
leadership only began it relatively short time ago when researchers first focused on those personal'ty characteristics presumed
to set leaders apart from others. This line of research is known as the trait approach to the study of leadership. Since that time
research has branched out to include the study of situational variables, leader behaviors (as opposed to traits), organizational
outcomes, and environmental variables which seem to affect the organizational outcomes of leadership.' In Figure 13-1, a
conceptual framework is presented which shows the relationship among these variables. We will rely on this framework as we
follow the development of leadership theory throughout this chapter.'
226
Leadership in Organizations
Figure 13-1. Systematic Presentation of Variables Used in Leadership Research
Conceptually, Figure 13-1 shows that the interaction of certain personality attributes of the leader and characteristics of the
particular situation results in leader behaviors which help determine organizational outcomes. In other words, according to this
model, situational variables and personal attributes of the leader relate to organizational outcomes only through the leader's
behavior-what the leader does. To make the picture complete, of course, we need to consider certain environmental variables
such as economic conditions, laws, interest groups, and the like which also influence organizational outcomes. Although a
detailed discussion of these environmental variables will be delayed until Chapter 20 (Organizational Leadership and the
External Environment), we need to take these variables into account as we ascertain organizational outcomes. Ultimately, then,
we are interested in learning what specific things leaders do (behaviors) to make them effective in organizations. And,
according to the model, we want to know to what extent we can predict these behaviors by knowing something about leader
attributes and the situations in which leaders find themselves.
We will discuss a number of leadership theories in
this chapter. Each theory will concentrate on a specific combination of the variables outlined in Figure 13-1. Some will define
specific relationships among these variables (contingency relationships). None of these theories will answer perfectly all the
questions about leader effectiveness. It is only through the analysis of all of the theories that we will begin to understand the
complex nature of the leadership phenomenon.
PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES AND ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES
[Return to the Table of Contents]
Recall that the first serious scientific inquiry into leadership effectiveness was an effort to examine the relationship between
personal attributes of the leader (traits) and organizational outcomes. Traits are defined as characteristics or attributes that are
relatively stable and indicative of certain elements of the personality structure of an individual (see Chapter 3, Individual
Process and Development). The earliest leadership researchers began with the assumption that there must be something about
certain people that makes them effective as leaders. Long lists of traits were developed and subLeadership and Organizational Outcomes
227
DOONESBURY
Garry Trudeau
(Unable to scan cartoon)
Copyright 1979 G.B. Trudeau. Reprinted with permission of Universal Press Syndicate. All rights reserved.
jected to scientific scrutiny. The feeling was that if leadership traits could be discovered, enormous gains could be made by
organizations which must select people for leadership roles.
In Chapter 1, we pointed out that it was the classic review of the hundreds of existing trait studies by the leadership theorist
Ralph M. Stogdill in the 1940s that led to disaffection with trait research in the leadership arena.' Although Stogdill found that
leaders tended to surpass the average follower on characteristics such as intelligence, socioeconomic status, popularity,
initiative, and social participation, the findings were not sufficiently strong to conclude that having these traits automatically
made a person a leader. This review and others like it supported the basic conclusion that leader effectiveness could not be
adequately explained by personal attributes.' This was not to say that socially desirable personality traits did not exist among
leaders, only that these traits did not predict effective leadership in all situations. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that it is
difficult to find common personality traits among such diverse historical leaders as Ike Eisenhower, George Patton, Eleanor
Roosevelt, Adolph Hitler, and Joseph Stalin that could account for their ability to influence large groups of people.
The lack of evidence for leadership traits led many researchers to ignore completely the personal attributes of leaders. In a
continuing effort to refine thinking with regard to traits, Stogdlll reviewed an additional 163
studies of leadership characteristics in 1974.' He analyzed studies that differentiated leaders from followers, effective leaders
from ineffective leaders, and higherechelon from lower-cchelon leaders. He concluded:
The leader is characterized by a strong desire for responsibility and task completion, vigor and persistence in pursuit of
goals, venturesomeness and originality in problem solving, drive to exercise initiative in social situations, self-confidence
and a sense of personal identity, willingness to accept consequences for decision and action, readiness to absorb
interpersonal stress, willingness to tolerate frustration and delay, ability to influence other persons' behavior and capacity to
structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand.'
Stogdill was careful to point out, however, that this new "list" did not constitute a return to the trait approach. He merely saw
it as a "sensible moderation of the extreme situationist point of view"-a view which tends to ignore the impact of the leader
altogether.
Some contemporary investigators continue to argue for a reexamination of the trait approach, reminding us that if leadership
is, in fact, an interpersonal influence process (Chapter 12), then certain social skills of the leader must be important. These
social skills most likely include: leader characteristics that reflect dominance, self-confidence, and a need to influence others;
leader orientation that stresses competence and success; leader ability to articulate ideological goals of importance to
228
subordinates; communication of high expectations and confidence in followers; and the identification of follower's roles in
ideological terms.' These same researchers suggest that there are some leaders who seem to elicit followership merely by their
personal presence and dedication to a transcendent mission or course of action. This is sometimes called charisma.
In Chapter 1 we reviewed several reasons why the trait approach may not sufficiently predict effective leadership. Among
these were: difficulty in identifying traits in leaders (one observer may perceive an action as reflecting "tact" in a leader while
another may see the same act as reflecting "lack of fortitude"), inability to find traits that are effective in all situations, inability
to measure traits reliably, and the perpetual question of how to develop traits in a person even if they could be isolated. In the
final analysis, a knowledge about traits or predispositions does little to help us in our quest for an understanding of leader
effectiveness, appearing useful only if they are manifested in some resulting behavioral pattern. Therefore, it appears that the
leader's behavior may be a more important variable in making predictions about leader effectiveness than the leader's
personality. The diagram below reflects such an analysis-personal attributes (what the leader is) influencing organizational
outcomes (leader effectiveness) through leader behavior (what the leader does).
This may sound like a play on words; however, it is well established that internal predispositions such as personality traits are
not necessarily the same thing as actual overt behavior. For example, a person may,refrain from discriminatory behavior
toward a particular race or gender because it is against the law. Such behavLeadership in Organizations
ior does not necessarily mean that the person is free of racial prejudice or sexual bias. In summary, therefore, we will
concentrate subsequent analysis on observed behavior of leaders rather than on the predispositions (traits) of the leader.
LEADER BEHAVIOR AND ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES
[Return the Table of Contents]
Following the logic that leader behavior may be the more critical catalyst for organizational effectiveness, we will look more
closely at the research on leader behavior as it relates to organizational outcomes.
Two major schools of thought in the development of research on leader behavior were the Ohio State University and the
University of Michigan. Although each school of thought developed independently, they arrived at very similar conceptual
dimensions of leader behavior. The students of these two schools have since proceeded in very different directions. In this
chapter we will examine the Ohio State perspective and the various theories it has generated. At the conclusion we will look
briefly at the University of Michigan perspective, but we will defer discussion of theories spawned by the Michigan approach
until a later chapter when we will discuss oganizational development processes (Chapter 1 9).
The Ohio State University Perspective
[Return to the Table of Contents]
Although the trait approach did not meet the expectations of researchers, it did suggest that perhaps the imLeadership and Organizational Outcomes
portant aspect of the leadership process was what leaders actually do. It is obvious that a leader engages in a myriad of
activities in any given situation. However, it was found that many of these activities or behaviors could be grouped together.
In the early 1950s, a group of researchers from the Ohio State University attempted to determine if there were clusters of
leader behaviors which led to critical organizational outcomes such as leader effectiveness, subordinate satisfaction, and
productivity. After conducting several research studies, two major dimensions or groupings of leader behavior emerged.
These have come to be known as consideration and initiating structure. They are defined in the following manner:'
F-1
F-1
Consideration reflects the extent to which the leader is likely to have job relationships characterized by mutual trust,
respect for subordinates' ideas, and consideration of their feelings.
Initiating Structure reflects the extent to which the leader is likely to define his role and those of his subordinates
toward goal attainment.
Based on the results of their initial studies, the researchers developed the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) to measure these two dimensions of leader
behavior. This questionnaire normally asks subordinates to describe the behavior of their most immediate supervisor.
Examples of some of the items contained in the LBDQare as follows:'
Consideration
F]
Fl
D
F@
He does little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group.
He finds time to listen to group members.
He backs up the members in their actions.
He is willing to make changes.
Initiating Structure
M He assigns group members to tasks.
F] He maintains definite standards of performance. He asks that group members follow standard rules and regulations.
Generally, consideration and initiating structure are considered to be independent variables-a leader can
229
Figure 13-2.
Ohio State Leader Behavior Dimensions
score high or low on either of the behavior scales regardless of the score on the other scale. This suggests a degree of
flexibility for the actions of leaders (compare this to personal attributes or traits which assume consistency in behavior).
In Figure 13-2, it can be seen that a leader may be described as being high on structure and consideration (Quadrant 2), low on
structure and consideration (Quadrant 4), or any other combination of the two variables (Quadrants I and 3).
Literally hundreds of research studies in military, industrial, and educational settings have been conducted using the LBDQ.
Findings from these studies have been used by various individuals to support their own "mini-theories" of the leadership
process. A brief summary of the better-known studies will illustrate the diverse settings and organizational variables used in
the leader behavior research.
In the 1950s, several studies were conducted on U.S. Air Force bomber commanders in both training and combat settings. In
training, commanders described by subordinates as being high on structure and low on consideration (Quadrant 1) generally
received high efficiency ratings from superiors. High crew-member satisfaction in training, however, was generally associated
with the commander's being described as high on consideration and low on structure (Quadrant 3). " In corn230
bat, superiors again gave the highest ratings to those leaders described as high on structure and low on consideration
(Quadrant 1); however, this time (a combat situation), high crew member satisfaction was associated with leaders who were
high on consideration and high on structure (Quadrant 2)." Another study reported that high group harmony was associated
with high consideration in combat as well as in training. High cohesiveness was positively related to high initiating structure
only under conditions of combat, but was uncorrelated in training situations. 1 2
Another study compared samples of ROTC cadets and industrial production foremen." High peer ratings of cadet leaders
were positively associated with both high consideration and structure. When superiors rated the cadet leaders, however,
there was no association between ratings and scores on consideration and structure. In the industrial setting, high
supervisory ratings were given to foremen who were rated by subordinates as high in structure and low in consideration (note
that these findings are similar to those reported on the bomber crew commanders). High turnover and high grievance rates
among subordinates (indications of dissatisfaction) were also positively associated with high structure, but did not correlate
with consideration.
One interesting research study was conducted using the LBDQ to study the leadership of teachers. In this study
psychology students were placed into four different teacher-behavior conditions: (1) high consideration and high initiating
structure, (2) low initiating structure and low consideration, (3) high consideration and low initiating structure, and (4) high
initiating structure and low consideration. Students in the class under high consideration and high initiating structure
performed best; those under high consideration and low initiating structure performed next best. The high structure and low
consideration condition resulted in the poorest student performance. 14
The research on leader behavior in a variety of situations has produced mixed results. However, leaders are generally rated
more effective when they score high in both consideration and initiating structure. This was true in military, industrial, and
educational settings. It is apparent throughout the studies that the highest levels of organizational outcomes (effectiveness,
satisfaction, low turnover) are achieved by some mix of consideration and initiating structure, and that this mix is influenced
by situational variables. Figure 13-3 summarizes
Leadership in Organizations
the most widely considered outcomes and their relation to leader behavior.
In addition to consideration and initiating structure, the continuing effort to refine clusters of behaviors has produced
several other behavioral dimensions on which leaders can be differentiated. Among these new dimensions are behaviors
which indicate the degree to which the leader is able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety (labeled
tolerance of uncertainty), behaviors which indicate the degree to which the leader allows followers initiative, decision and
action (tolerance of freedom), behaviors which indicate the degree to which the leader applies pressure for performance or
production output (production emphasis), and behaviors which indicate the degree to which the leader reconciles conflicting
demands and generates order in the system (demand reconciliation)." However, limited research is available relating the
newer behavioral dimensions to organizational outcomes. As with earlier studies, though, preliminary research on these
dimensions indicates that leader behavior is significantly related to positive organizational outcomes only when situational
variables are considered.
What then is the primary significance of the Ohio State leader behavior dimensions? Stogdill points out that the real
significance of the consideration and initiating structure dimensions is explained in terms of follower reaction to these
behaviors. That is, consideration and initiating structure behaviors on the part of the leader seem to produce different effects
on the behavior and expectations of followers." These follower behaviors, in turn, influence organizational outcomes.
The Managerial Grid
[Return to the Table of Contents]
While Stogdill and his associates were continuing their research into the nature of leader behavior, other authors were
beginning to apply the limited knowledge in a prescriptive manner. Robert Blake and Jane Mouton concluded that the most
effective leader is one who is high on both consideration and initiating structure." They have formulated a model commonly
referred to as the Managerial Grid. This model can be viewed as an extension of the two-dimensional diagram in Figure 132. However, instead of dividing these dimensions into high and low categories, Blake and Mouton placed each dimension on
a continuum from " I " (low) to 1191, (high). Additionally, they have associated different
Leadership and Organizational Outcomes
231
Figurel3-3. SummaryofRelationshipsBetweenLeaderBehaviorandOrganizationalOutcomes
names with the leader dimensions: Consideration is termed "concern for people," and initiating structure is replaced by
"concern for production." Five major points are identified on their model as representing primary styles of leader behavior:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Low concern for production as well as for people (see Quadrant 4 in Figure 13-2) is labeled "impoverished" leadership.
Low concern for people but high concern for production (Quadrant 1) is referred to as "task" leadership.
Low concern for production and high concern for people (Quadrant 3) is termed "country club" leadership.
Moderate concern for people and production (intersection of all four quadrants) is called "middle of the road" leadership.
5.
High concern for people and production (Quadrant
2) is called "team" leadership.
The prescription suggested by these authors is that a "team" style of leadership (Quadrant 2) will optimize both task
accomplishment and subordinate welfare and is, therefore, the most desirable leadership style. The least desirable leadership
behavior, of course, is "impoverished " (Quadrant 4), since the leader has minimal impact on organizational outcomes.
The Managerial Grid is intuitively appealing because it is a greatly simplified approach to leadership. The inherent prescription of the model is that a leader can, and should,
simultaneously engage in both considerate and structuring behaviors, regardless of the task. In terms of the dilemma of
leadership (Chapter 1), the leader needs to emphasize both mission and people in all leadership situations.
A simple example can demonstrate the difficulty in applying this basic principle across all situations. Consider a military
leader in the process of leading a unit to breach a minefield in combat. During the time required to accomplish this task, can
this leader realistically be highly considerate and structuring at the same time? In which type of behavior are the subordinates
more interested? Members will probably demand structure and be much less concerned with considerate behavior, at least
during the few hours required to complete the mission. Recall that in the air crew studies mentioned earlier, high subordinate
satisfaction was associated with low leader structure in every day training situations, while during combat high satisfaction was
correlated with high structure. Blake and Mouton's model would not predict this outcome. We must conclude, therefore, that
the Managerial Grid, like other approaches which propose "a single most effective leadership style," is incomplete. Again, it
appears that situational variables must be considered in determining appropriate leader behavior.
232
SITUATIONAL VARIABLES AND ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES
[Return to the Table of Contents]
Perhaps the most important conclusion to be drawn from both the trait and leader behavior approaches is that situational
variables have an important role in predicting organizational outcomes. However, the situation includes many different
variables. Which ones will help to explain effective leadership best? Among the situational variables which researchers
have investigated are: communication processes and structure, organizational design, conflict and control, organizational
climate, stress, uncertainty and ambiguity, and group process. Most of these are discussed in great detail in other chapters
in this text. In this section we will look at some contemporary situational approaches that seem to have promise for
advancing our understanding of the leadership process. These are: Situational Leadership Theory, which considers the
maturity of the group being led; Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory, which concentrates on the formation of relationships
between leader and individual subordinates; Path-Goal Theory, which suggests means by which the leader can identify
paths to convergent organizational and individual goals; and the Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness, which
proposes an interaction between leader style and the favorableness of the situation for the leader. In actuality, the
situational approaches we will present here are interactional in nature-that is, they do not consider the situation without the
leader. However, they all stress that situational variables affect leader behavior and, consequently, organizational
outcomes.
Situational Leadership Theory
[Return to the Table of Contents]
Subordinates change as they acquire experience, knowledge, confidence, and familarity with others. As we can see in
Box 13-A, in order to determine the appropriate leader behavior the complexity of the task, as perceived by subordinates,
and the maturity of the group may need to be considered. Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard have proposed a theory
which expands upon the initial Ohio State leader behavior studies by incorporating the specific situational variable of
group maturity. In terms of our schematic representation from Figure 13-1, the Situational Leadership Theory (sometimes
called Life Cycle Theory of Leadership)" would be viewed as follows:
Leadership in Organizations
The interaction between leader and subordinates has a strong impact on the accomplishment of assigned tasks as well as on
subordinate satisfaction, absentee rates, and turnover. As we know from the preceding chapter, subordinates as a group
determine the actual personal power that the leader will have. Therefore, the leader behaviors exhibited in any given situation
should be those that maximize the effectiveness of the particular group. This means that behaviors must be oriented toward the
needs and requirements of the group members in a given task. The behaviors described in the Situational Leadership Theory
are basically the same two dimensions found in the Ohio State Studies-consideration and initiating structure. Hersey and
Blanchard have labeled these dimensions relationship and task behaviors, respectively. Task behaviors are oriented on task
accomplishment and include the leader specifying what each subordinate is to do, as well as how, when, and where it is to be
done. Relationship behaviors are best described as actions the leader takes which indicate emotional support, communication,
facilitation, and interpersonal relations. Group maturity, the situational variable in this theory, is currently defined by member
ability to do the job (called job maturity) and member motivation or willingness to do the job (called psychological maturity). 19
job maturity is derived from a scale which measures individual knowledge and skills, and ability to perform the task without
direction from others. Typical questions asked in assessing a subordinate's job maturity pertain to past training and experience,
knowledge of the job, and the understanding of the job requirements."
The second factor, psychological maturity, is derived from scales which measure subordinate achievement motivation,
willingness to accept responsibility, and
Leadership and Organizational Outcomes
233
BOX 13-A: The New Lieutenant
His unit's mission was highly complex. All his noncommissioned officers (NCO's) were good, but new at this task. They
didn't know quite how to proceed. Neither did the lieutenant-but he was afraid to ask anyone for fear of looking incompetent.
Throughout, the NCO's complained because of lack of guidance. Somehow the unit stumbled through the assignment and
completed it in a barely satisfactory manner. The company commander called the lieutenant aside and counseled him to be
more assertive in running his platoon. "Give the people lots of your attention and guidance:' he suggested, "they need it!" The
lieutenant was glad that was over... His next mission was a very simple one-post support, which included sending groups of
soldiers under the supervision of a squad leader to cut grass, rake leaves, move bleachers, pick up lifter and the like. Wanting
to make a good impression, this time the lieutenant outlined specific detailed instructions and assignments for the platoon
sergeant. He corrected the squad leaders for making a routine decision on their own. When inspecting their detail members, he
issued additional instructions, continually emphasized the need to meet the deadline (the work was already progressing ahead
of schedule), and closely supervised the task to insure strict adherence to policies. The result quickly stirred dissatisfaction and
complaints among his sergeants. The lieutenant could not understand why. He was only doing what his boss had suggested....
commitment to the task. In this case, information is acquired from both subordinates and their leader."
By classifying subordinates as either high or low on each of the two dimensions, the authors create four levels of subordinate
maturity labeled respectively, Ml (low maturity) through M4 (high maturity) as shown in Figure 13-4. The levels are further
defined as:
F@ Ml. Low maturity-group members are low in bothjob knowledge and willingness to do the job.
F]
F]
F]
M2. Moderately low maturity-group members are low in job knowledge but high in willingness to do the job.
M3. Moderately high maturity-group members are high in job knowledge but low in willingness to do the job.
M4. High maturity-group members are high in both job knowledge and willingness to do the job.
With this situational variable (group maturity) as its
foundation, the authors developed the bell-shaped mix of appropriate leader behaviors shown in Figure 13-4. As this
diagram suggests, when the level of subordinate maturity changes, the leader should adjust the balance between task and
relationship behaviors accordingly. For instance, when followers are immature (Ml), that
is, they neither have the education, training and experience required for the job, nor the willingness to accomplish it, the
leader needs to provide structure, organization and direction and be less concerned about interpersonal relationships. This
leadership approach is best described as high task and low relationship (Quadrant 1). In effect, the main behavior of the leader
involves "telling" subordinates what to do. One example of a group for which this approach might be appropriate is a newly
formed unit of nonvolunteers or a work crew with low morale and high turnover.
If subordinates lack experience and an appreciation for the established goals, but are rated high in willingness, motivation,
and commitment (M2), the authors propose that the leader will be more successful by providing emotional support, open
communications, and an awareness of the interpersonal needs of group members while at the same time maintaining task
direction (Quadrant 2). Here the leader may be described as I @ selling" subordinates on what has to be done. A group of
volunteers who lack requisite skills may demonstrate this higher level of maturity.
The third state of maturity requires minimal job direction by the leader, but consideration needs to be high (Quadrant 3).
Here, subordinates know what to do but
234
Figure 13-4.
Situational Leadership Theory
Paul Hersey, Kenneth H. Blanchard, Management of Organizational Behavior. Utilizing Human Resources, 4th ed., @ 1 982,
p. 152, reprinted by permission of Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
are less than anxious to accomplish the task (M3). A well-trained military unit with morale problems may be an example of
this level of maturity. According to the theory, the best leadership style in this situation involves allowing the members to
"participate" in critical task decisions. This requires a high level of relationship behavior.
In some cases, subordinates may reach full maturity (M4). In this situation, according to Situational Leadership Theory, the
leader need not pay particular attention to either relationship or task behaviors (Quadrant 4). In effect, the leader can
"delegate." Such a group might be an independent research group or the Physical
Leadership in Organizations
Education Committee at an Airborne School. Essentially, such groups operate independent of their leader.
Since the requirement for leader task and relationship behaviors is minimal in Quadrant 4, it might appear that the leader
becomes unnecessary when subordinates approach full maturity. Of course, this is not the case. For instance, such a
situational state pertains only to the given task and may not apply to other tasks. Also, as followers come and go, and
interpersonal problems arise, the leader will be required to intervene with the appropriate actions. Should the organization
remain in Quadrant 4 for a sustained period of time and across a wide variety of tasks, however, the leader's role is to orient
outward for the good of the group. This "linking pin" role has been previously described in terms of resource gathering and
other boundary-role activities.
In summary, the Situational Leadership Theory is an attempt to demonstrate the appropriate relationship between the leader's
behavior and a particular aspect of the situation-group maturity. According to the model, the leader must remain sensitive to
the subordinates' level of maturity. As personal problems arise, new tasks are assigned, or the degree of stress inherent in the
situation changes, subordinates may act less maturely. The model prescribes that leaders should adjust their behavior
accordingly. Thus, the Situational Leadership Theory assumes a dynamic situation where the maturity of the subordinates does
change and where the leader's behavior must change appropriately in order to maintain effectiveness.
Although the Situational Leadership approach is very appealing, many questions remain unanswered. Group maturity is a
multidimensional variable involving both ability and motivation. As noted in Chapter 2, there is some question as to the
relative importance of these variables for leadership. Is an unmotivated but knowledgeable group really more mature than a
motivated but less knowledgeable group? Also, the theory implies some sort of averaging of individual maturity in order to
arrive at appropriate leader behavior toward the group. Can we really consider the average maturity for the group as a
meaningful entity? In addition, is the leader really capable of altering behavior to the extent prescribed by the model? These
questions must be answered before real-life applications seem feasible. Nevertheless, the theory is a useful start toward
integrating leader behavior and some situational variables.
Leadership and Organizational Outcomes
4
Copyright 1980, The Army Times, Washington, D.C. By permission
Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory
[Return to the Table of Contents]
In most leadership approaches we refer to the group as acting and reacting as a single entity. That is, we have generally
assumed that leader behavior toward the group is uniform-considerate behavior or structuring behavior. Such a view ignores
what we know about the interpersonal nature of the leadership process-individual subordinates perceive leader behavior
uniquely and respond accordingly in an individualized manner (Chapter 12, Leadership As An Interpersonal Influence
Process). George Graen and his associates have attempted to address this shortcoming by developing a theory of leadership
effectiveness which takes into account the uniqueness of the leader-subordinate relationship and the individual role
relationships established within the group (recall Chapter 8, Individuals In Groups). Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory (VDL)
suggests that the behavior a leader directs toward individual members of the group is dependent upon the role relationship that
has been established between the leader and each particular subordinate. It incorporates role-sending by the leader and the
differentiation of subordinates into several groupings. Role-sending is carried out in a two-way process between the leader and
each subordinate and involves the negotiation of an in235
OP- t4OT TV EtE A
S.Qa.
-N,@T- IS 7-HC OUES-rloV
formal contract defining the nature of that particular working relationship. According to the VDL theory, these dyads, or oneto-one relationships, become grouped in the leader's mind into three categories of people: an in-group, those with whom the
leader has open, two-way communication and mutual trust; an out-group, those with whom there is a formal authority
relationship; and a middle-group, those with whom the leader continues negotiation." The variables in the VDL approach can
be schematically represented as follows:
In forming dyads, consideration is generally given to such factors as how close the interaction will be, what level of emotional
involvement will be acceptable, and what degree of dominance each will have. The leader's
236
behaviors that exhibit these considerations, coupled with the type of subgroup being considered (in, out, or middle), lead to
the development of one of three patterns of exchange called linkages." Figure 13-5 is a summary of research findings
concerning leader behaviors toward each group subset which, in turn, determines the type of linkage made between the leader
and each subordinate in that subset. These linkages indicate the patterns of exchange and influence that determine the nature
of the relationship between leader and subordinate. It might be asked whether such a two-person social structure within task
groups is a realistic portrayal of the leadership process when, in fact, observations within organizations clearly show that
leaders do interact differently with different members of the group. For example, think of formal groups to which you have
belonged-perhaps a job or an athletic team. Did the leader treat each member of the group similarly? Referring back to the
functional description of leadership in Chapter 1, as subordinates differ in their needs, motives, and incentives, the leader
must take into account these differences if maximum performance is to be attained.
The vertical dyad concept appears to have most relevance during the initial phases of organizationally appointed leadership.
As might be expected, first impressions play an important part in the initial differentiation of subordinates into group subsets.
Graen postulates that during the initial or sampling phase, both leaders and subordinates evaluate each other-the leader as to the
relevant abilities, values, and motivation of subordinates; the follower as to the leader's handling of organizational demands
from above and reaction to feedback from below. Based upon this initial information, the leader and follower enter into what is
called the bargaining phase. Those subordinates perceived as reliable, motivated, achievement-oriented, and competent are
offered a leadership linkage-one characterized by more latitude and less structure in defining their roles with the leader. The
development of a leadership linkage implies the leader's willingness to share resources and be protective of the subordinate.
Supervisory linkages, on the other hand, result from an impression formation that is best characterized by lack of trust. The
leader assumes a formal, distant relationship with selected subordinates (outgroup). The exchange process maintains rigid
status differences and the use of formal authority in dealing with subordinates. Middle-group
Leadership in Organizations
subordinates will continue in the sampling phase until
I such time as the social exchange establishes a firm informal contract. Middle-group members do not necessarily move to either extreme. They may remain as middlegroup
members, in a stewardship linkage, negotiating in accordance with the specific task requirements. During the final VDL
phase-known as the commitment phase-norms are established governing how the leader and subordinate will interact on a
continuing basis. Although some adjustments may occur once the commitment phase is reached, the basic interpersonal
dyadic relationships that will exist within that group remain quite stable." One study using VDL linkages suggests that the
leader establishes these linkages over time, based largely on performance criteria. That is, those who perform well early in
the formation of the group are most likely to become part of the leader's in-group and benefit from subsequent behaviors
associated with a leadership relationship."
This model assumes that the larger the in-group and the smaller the out-group, the more effective will be the leader's
performance. Indeed, research shows that relegation to an out-group status leads to dissatisfaction of members and eventual
departure from the job."
A basic criticism of VDL Theory has to do with how the subgroups are determined and what specific leader behaviors toward
each subgroup are critical in producing greatest effectiveness. Also the question of criteria for measuring effectiveness is still
an issue. These effectiveness criteria must be defined and their relationship to the VDL variables determined. Nevertheless,
VDL offers a very realistic view of the interpersonal social exchange that occurs between the leader and each subordinate. It
actuary describes the nature of the interaction that must occur, rather than merely making the assumption that the group's
behavior and expectations are represented by some average response. By addressing these differences, as shown in the
functional description of leadership (Chapter 1), the leader can begin to optimize the effectiveness of each subordinate and
thus the entire group.
Path-Goal Theory of Leadership
[Return to the Table of Contents]
As we consider the behaviors of leaders in different leadership situations, the variable that repeatedly comes into play is the
subordinate-the individual group
Leadership and Organizational Outcomes
237
Figure 13-5. Vertical Dyad Linkages
member referred to in the Vertical Dyad Linkage approach. One assumption would be, therefore, that leader behavior affects
organizational outcomes only to the extent that this behavior influences subordinates to do something in support of
organizational goals. If this is the case, then characteristics of the subordinate appear to be an important situational variable for
the leader to consider.
Recall from the functional description of leadership that subordinate performance on a given task is a function of the ability
and willingness to complete the task. From the subordinate's perspective, however, ability translates into the extent to which
the subordinate expects effort to lead to some acceptable performance, while willingness translates into an assessment of the
probability that the acceptable performance will lead to a valued extrinsic or intrinsic reward. Recall from Chapter 4
(Individual Needs, Expectations and Motivation) that these two aspects of performance are the basis for a particular theory of
motivation-the expectancy theory.
Robert J. House" and Martin Evans" have formulated a leadership theory based on the propositions of the expectancy theory
of individual motivation. This theory, called the Path-Goal Theory of Leadership, hypothesizes that the leadership function is a
supplementary one-that is, with respect to performance, the leader merely amplifies or detracts from existing subordinate
potential. This theory advances two basic assumptions:
1.
leader behavior is acceptable and satisfying to subordinates to the extent that subordinates see such behavior as
immediately satisfying, or as instrumental to some future satisfaction, and
leader behavior is motivating if the behavior makes satisfaction of subordinates contingent on effective performance and
provides the coaching, guidance, support, and rewards necessary for effective performance . 21
2.
238
Modifying somewhat the elements of Figure 13-1, the basic structure of Path-Goal theory is as follows:
To explain the differential influence of behaviors used by the leader, House and Evans expanded upon the Ohio State
leader behavior dimensions discussed earlier. Four types of leader behavior were identified."
Instrumental. Focuses on structuring, planning, and organizing work activities for subordinates.
Participative: Involves the sharing of information, power and influence in achieving the task.
Supportive: Focuses on creating an open, friendly climate for subordinates and being primarily concerned about their
welfare.
Achievement-oriented.- Characterized by setting challenging goals, expecting subordinates to perform at their best, and
showing a high degree of confidence that subordinates will assume responsibility, put forth effort, and accomplish the task.
According to path-goal theory, these leader behaviors influence subordinate perceptions in different ways depending upon
the way in which certain situational variables interact. The first set of situational variables involves characteristics of the
subordinates themselves,
and
includes factors such as:
Fl
F-I
F-I
The subordinate's perceived ability to accomplish the task.
The subordinate's locus of control. People with an internal locus of control believe that they can control their own
destiny, and are less dependent on others than are people with an external locus of control. (See Chapter 3, Individual
Process and Development).
The subordinate's needs, including need for achievement and need for authority (need to be directed).
Leadership in Organizations
The second set of situational variables derives from characteristics of the work environment. Included are factors such as:
F]
The nature of the task (structured or unstructured, simple or complex, routine or irregular).
F@ Group norms and the stage of development of the work group.
F-I The nature of the formal authority system."
Finally, the theory suggests that various combinations of leader behaviors and situational characteristics will affect one or
more of several organizational outcomes. These organizational outcomes are identified as subordinate satisfaction,
performance, effort, and motivation.
Figure 13-6 summarizes all the variables and the relationships among them as suggested by Path-Goal theory.
An underlying assumption of this theory, of course, is that leader behavior is flexible and that the four types of behavior
can be exhibited by the same leader in different situations. The important question for ,he leader, then, is to decide which
leader behavior is appropriate given a particular combination of situation variables. We will examine some sample
combinations of variables to show which behavior would be most appropriate according to the theory.
Recalling that the Path-Goal Theory is based on the expectancy theory of motivation, it would appear that the first step
would be to diagnose which link in the subordinate's expectancy chain is weak, and then take the appropriate action to
strengthen that link. (The reader may need to refer to Chapter 4 at this point and review the various aspects of expectancy
theory.) For example, a weak "behavior-to-performance" link could be caused either by low perceived ability (characteristic
of the subordinate) or by an ambiguous work assignment (characteristic of work environment), or both. In this case,
instrumental leader behavior, which focuses on structuring, planning and organizing, would seem to be most appropriate to
increase the performance level of a subordinate. At the same time, however, instrumental behavior would be more
appropriate for a person with an external locus of control or a high need for direction than for a subordinate with a high
perceived ability level, a low need for direction, or an interLeadership and Organizational Outcomes
239
Figure 13-6. Relationships Among Variables Associated With Path-Goal Theory
nal locus of control. For the latter, instrumental behavior would probably not be inherently satisfying or lead to future
satisfaction. 32, 33
Participative leader behavior is expected to increase subordinate performance under several conditions. First, if the task is
unstructured, subordinates will learn most about the task and their expected performance if they participate in the decision
making process. Their participation may reduce role ambiguity and thus increase the strength of the behavior-to-performance
link. In situations where subordinates have a clear understanding of their job or the task is routine and highly structured,
participative leader behavior would appear to be less effective according to the logic of the theory."
The other condition under which participative leader behavior would be appropriate is when a subordinate has an internal
locus of control and a high need for achievement. Allowing participation may be intrinsically rewarding for such subordinates.
On the other
hand, participative leader behavior may be ineffective, or even threatening, to a subordinate with external locus of control or
high need for direction."
According to the theory, when a subordinate's task is inherently stressful, tedious, or boring the leader can make work
performance more enjoyable by using the supportive leader behavior. Supportive behavior can provide intrinsic rewards
necessary for task accomplishment, and thus increase subordinate satisfaction even though the task may not be a desirable one.
However, if the task is inherently pleasing or satisfying to perform, supportive behavior may have little effect. Supportive
leader behavior may also be effective if a subordinate fears failure or is in a high state of anxiety. Here, supportive leadership
may increase the subordinate's behavior-to-performance link by increasing confidence. In situations where a subordinate has
high confidence and low anxiety, however, supportive leadership may again have little effect."
240
Lastly, with regard to achievement-oriented leader behavior, the theory suggests that such behavior will cause a subordinate
to have more confidence in his ability to achieve high goals. Leaders who set challenging goals and express confidence in a
subordinate's ability to accomplish them may increase the subordinate's behavior-to-performance link when the tasks involved
are unstructured or non-routine. On the other hand, when tasks are repetitive or highly structured, achievementoriented leader
behaviors would logically have little or no effect. 'I
We also learned from the discussion of expectancy theory that in addition to identifying paths to goal accomplishment for the
subordinates, the leader may affect the value of the goal or reward itself (the performance-to-outcome link). When leaders
build up rewards and incentives in the minds of their subordinates, they are actually making the reward more enticing in the
hope that the subordinate will work for it. One reward that is often overlooked, however, is the leader himselfl Is it possible for
subordinates to perform purely on the force of the personal relationship with the leader? House points out that charismatic
leadership is possible when there are: follower beliefs similar to those of the leader; unquestioning acceptance of and affection
for the leader; willing obedience to the leader; identification with and emulation of the leader; emotional involvement of the
follower in the mission; and heightened goals of the follower." In Chapter 9 (Socializing Individuals Into Groups), we
discussed the identification process in which association with the leader becomes the impetus for compliant behavior. In this
case, identification with the leader becomes a sufficient reward outcome for subordinates.
As in all theories that attempt to define some of the complex relationships in the leadership process, the path-goal approach
has some short-comings. The manner in which leader behavior is to be measured is unclear. The earliest formulation utilized
the Ohio State consideration and initiating structure behaviors. How achievement-oriented and participative behaviors are to
be measured is not yet clearly delineated. In addition, most of the research on path-goal theory deals with subordinate
satisfaction, effort, or motivation. Specific performance criteria have rarely been used. It appears critical that specific
organizational outcomes resulting from subordinate performance be predictable if the theory is to be of any significant value to
leaders who must ultiLeadership in Organizations
mately answer to their organizations in terms of results. Once again, we are faced with the question of whether a leader is
capable of providing the flexibility of behavior demanded by this theory.
The important message from Situational Leadership, Vertical Dyad Linkage, and Path-Goal theories of leadership, however,
is that the relationship between leader behavior and effectiveness cannot be treated in a vacuum. Numerous situational
variables must be taken into account to assess the leadership process.
The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness
[Return to the Table of Contents]
The results of all of the major leadership approaches discussed so far point to the fact that an adequate study of the leadership
process must take into account the complexity of the interaction between leader attributes, subordinate characteristics, and
situational variables. The Situational Leadership, VDL and Path-Goal theories discussed thus far all emphasize the interaction
of the leader and subordinates where subordinate factors are viewed as situational variables influencing leader behavior.
Despite the discouraging support for a theory based solely on leader traits, however, it is apparent that some aspect of the
personal attributes of the leader may have a part in the leadership process-a part somehow related to factors about the
subordinates, characteristics of the task, organizational constraints, and so on. The development of an approach which links
leader attributes or characteristics to the many other variables which may moderate leadership effectiveness is an imposing task.
One possible approach might be to try to incorporate the motivation of the leader in accomplishing a leadership task. Much
research has been done on motivation and satisfaction of the subordinates (see Chapters 4, 5, and 6), but little has been done on
the motivation of the leader. Surely there are certain things that a leader would like to obtain from the leadership situation-not
just for the organization in the role as organizational leader, but also as an individual who happens to be in the role of a leader.
A model for leadership effectiveness has been developed by Fred E. Fiedler that does incorporate, as one of the variables, the
motivation of the leader." The situational components of the model deal with the interaction of the leader and members,
characteristics of the task to be performed, and organizational
Leadership and Organizational Outcomes
power possessed as a result of the leadership position. The model attempts to integrate leader attributes, leader behavior,
and situational variables, in a very complex, contingency relationship where the effectiveness of a leader depends (is
contingent) upon leader style (a personal attribute) and certain aspects of the situation. The variables of the Contingency
Model of Leadership Effectiveness can be portrayed using our earlier schematic representation.
Leader Style. The Contingency Model postulates that the effectiveness of a task group depends on two primary factors:
some personality characteristic of the leader and the degree to which the situation gives the leader power, influence, and
control over the situation. The leader's personal attributes are distinguished in terms of a motivational system. One type of
leader, called task-motivated, is primarily motivated toward the accomplishment of the given task and the knowledge that he
or she has done well. The other type of leader, relationship-motivated, primarily seeks to maintain good interpersonal
relationships with co-workers. At best, these are rough descriptions of leader motivation, but they provide a picture which
suggests that leaders are motivated differently and that they may behave differently under various conditions.
Leader motivation is measured by the Least-preferred Co-worker (LPC) scale. A score is obtained by asking individuals to
describe the one person with whom they can work least well. The description of this person is made on an eight-point,
bipolar scale consisting of 16 to 22 items. Box 13-B contains the LPC scale. You may desire to determine your LPC score
before reading further.
241
The LPC score of an individual is the sum of the scale item scores. The more favorably individuals describe their leastpreferred co-worker, the higher will be their score. (For this scale, a low LPC score is 57 or below and a high LPC score is 64
or above. Those in the middle range, 58 to 63, need to determine for themselves the category which best describes them based
on the description to follow). It becomes apparent that to obtain a relatively high score, one must indicate a willingness to
perceive even their worst co-worker as having some positive attributes. The lower the score, on the other hand, the greater the
tendency to perceive one's worst coworker in a stereotypic, negative way. It is important to point out now that the LPC score is
not a measure of leader behavior. It purports to measure a stable, personality characteristic which can be reflected in a wide
range of behaviors depending on the situation. For instance, the high LPC leader has a primary motive to have good
interpersonal relationships with others. According to Fiedler's interpretation of the score, however, once this goal is reached,
then the high LPC leader is free to satisfy other needs, such as self-esteem and status (secondary goals for a high LPC leader).
In this secondary goal state, the leader may no longer behave in a personable, considerate manner. On the other hand, the low
LPC leader has a primary motive for getting a job done. When this goal is reached, the leader may form a pleasant
interpersonal relationship with subordinates. ' (As long as the work is being done satisfactorily, why not be friendly!) A
summary of primary and secondary motivational needs of high and low LPC leaders is shown in Figure 13-7.
Recent reviews of studies that have tested the stability of LPC scores over time indicate that the LPC score and the
personality attributes it reflects are as stable as most other personality measures." In other words, findings suggest that an
individual will score nearly the same score when the LPC scale is taken a second time at some later date. Such consistent
scoring is a key factor in determining the reliability of any personality measure."
The Leadership Situation. As in other situational theories of leadership, the Contingency Model specifies certain situational
variables. Referred to as situational favorableness, these variables describe the extent to which the situation gives the leader
control and influence. " As a leader, the more control and influence one has over the task and the interaction with
subordinates, the more favorable the situation is.
242
Leadership in Organizations
BOX 13-B(l): Least Preferred Coworker Scale
Over the course of your life you have probably worked in many groups with other people, on yourjob, in community or
church groups, athletic teams, etc. Some of your coworkers may have been very easy to work with in attaining the
group's goal, while others were less so.
Think of the one person with whom you can work least well. He or she may be someone you work with now or someone
you knew in the past. It does not have to be the person you have liked least well, but shouldbe theperson with whom you
have had the most difficultyin getting ajob done. You do not need to give the person's name.
The scale consists of pairs of words which are opposite in meaning, such as Very Neat and Very Untidy. Between each
pair of words are eight blanks so that the scale looks like this:
Very Neat: - : - : - : - : - : - : - : - : Very Untidy
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Example
In describing the person with whom you least like to work, if you ordinarily think of him/her as being quite neat, you
would put an "X" in the space marked 7, like this:
x
Very:
-. -. -. -. -. -. -: -: Very
Neat
8
Very
Neat
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Quite
Neat
Somewhat
Slightly
Neat
Slightly
Untidy
Somewhat
Quite
Untidy
Very
1
Untidy
Untidy
Neat
Untidy
If you ordinarilythinkof this person as being onlyslightlyneat, you would putyour "X" in space 5:
Very:-:
-. -. -. -: Very
Neat
8
7
6
5
Very
Quite
Some-
Neat
Neat
what
Slightly
Neat
4
3
2
Slightly
Some-
Quite
Very
Untidy
what
Untidy
Untidy
Neat
Untidy
Untidy
If you would think of this person as being very untidy (or not neat), you would put your "X" in space 1:
Very:-:
Very
Neat
8
7
6
5
Very
Quite
Some-
Neat
Neat
what
Slightly
Neat
4
3
2
1
Slightly
Some-
Quite
Ve ry
Untidy
what
Untidy
Untidy
Neat
Untidy
Look at the words at both ends of the line before you mark your "X". Remember, there are no right or wrong answers.
Work rapidly; your first answer is likely to be the best. Do not omit any items, and mark each item only once. This scale
will not give you the correct answer unless you carefully follow these instructions.
Now go to the next page, and describe the person with whom you can work least well.
Leadership and Organizational Outcomes
243
BOX 13-B(2): Least Preferred Coworker Scale (LPC)
Pleasant :-: -: -: -: -: -: -: -: Unpleasant
8 7 6 5 4 3 2
Friendly :-: -: -: -: -: -: -: -: Unfriendly
8 7 6 5 4 3 2
Rejecting :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:Accepting
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Tense :-: -: -: -: -: -: -: -: Relaxed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Distant :-: -: -: -: -: -: -: -: Close
1
Cold
1
2
1
1
8
8
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
Untidy
Supportive :-: -: -: -: -: -: -: -: Hostile
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Boring :-: -: -: -: -: -: -: -: Interesting
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Quarrelsome :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:Harmonious
1
2345678
Gloomy
:-: -: -: -: -: -: -: -: Cheerful
1
2345678
Open
8 7
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:Guarded
6 5 4 3 2 1
Backbiting :-: -: -: -: -: -: -: -: Loyal
12345678
Untrustworthy
- : - : - : - : - : - : - : - : Trustworthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Considerate
- : - : - : - : - : - : - : - : Inconsiderate
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Nasty :-: -: -: -: -: -: -: -: Nice
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
Agreeable - : - : - : - : - : - : - : - : Disagreeable
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Insincere :-: -: -: -: -: -: -: -: Sincere
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Kind :-: -: -: -: -: -: -: -: Unkind
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Total
244
Leadership in Organizations
Designation
Primary Motivation
Secondary
Motivation
High LPC
Relatedness to Others
Task
Low LPC
Getting the Job Done
Good Interpersonal
Accomplishment
Relations
With Work
Associates
Figure 13-7. Primary and Secondary Motivational Needs of High and Low LPC Leaders
Fiedler uses three subscales to define situational favorableness. One subscale, called the leader-member relations (LM) scale,
describes the interpersonal relationship or climate which exists between the leader and group members. It indicates the degree
to which the leader feels accepted and supported by the members. The means of determining LM is shown in Box 13-C (each
question is answered on the scale provided and the circled numbers are added to arrive at a total score)."
The second subscale defines the degree of structure inherent in the task as a result of dearly stated goals, programs, rules,
regulations, and measurable success. This dimension is known as task structure (TS) and is virtually identical to the structure
dimension used in the Path-Goal theory discussed earlier. The means of determining task structure is two-fold. First, Box 13D(l) shows questions pertaining to the nature of the task, such as whether the goal is dearly stated or known,
whether there is only one way to accomplish the task, whether there is only one correct answer or solution, and whether it is
easy to know if thejob is done correctly. The second, Box 13D(2), pertains to the training and experience of the leader.
According to the model, lack of training and experience on the part of the leader detracts from the leader's ability to structure
the task.
The final subscale of situational favorableness is position power (PP). Position power defines the degree to which the leader
can reward and punish, and hire and fire as a result of formal position within the organization. Box 13-E is the scale for
determining position power.
In order to determine the situational favorableness score for the leader, the numbers from each scale are entered onto the
situational favorableness scale shown in Box 13-E The total individual score, when compared with the representative scale at
the bottom, suggests to
Figure 13-8. Situational Favorableness Dimensions of the Contingency Model
Leadership and Organizational Outcomes
245
BOX 13-C: Leader-Member Relations Scale (LM)
Circle the number which best represents your response to each item.
Strongly
Neither Agree
Agree Agree Nor Disagree
Disagree Disagree
1.
3.
The people I supervise have trouble getting along
with each other.
1
2
3
4
5
2. My subordinates are reliable and trustworthy.
5
4
3
2
1
There seems to be a friendly atmosphere among
the people I supervise.
4.
5
3
2
5
4
3
2
1
1
There is friction between my subordinates and myself.
6.
4
My subordinates always cooperate with me in getting the job done.
5.
Strongly
1
2
My subordinates give me a good deal of help and
3
4
5
support in getting the job done.
7.
5
4
3
2
1
The people I supervise work well together in getting the job done.
8. 1 have good relations with the people I supervise.
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
Total Score
the leader the degree of situational favorableness existing in the particular job.
It should be apparent from looking at the total possible score for each subscale that the three dimensions are not equally
weighted. According to the model, leadermember relations (which can acquire a maximum weight of 40 points) is twice as
important in calculating situational favorableness as task structure (which can acquire a maximum weight of only 20 points).
The subscale with the least effect on situational favorableness is position power (a maximum of 10 points available). The
ratio of 4:2:1 among subscales is based on the relationship developed in the original model for calculating situational
favorableness. This method involves breaking each subscale into two categories. Leader-member relations was classified as
relatively good or poor; task structure as relatively structured or unstructured; and the position power as relatively strong or
weak. Taking the three dimensions (LM,TS,PP) and categorizing them as indicated leads to the eight-celled classification
shown in Figure 13-8. The octants, or cells, are ordered to indicate the most favorable circumstances for the leader
Leadership and Organizational Outcomes
247
BOX 13-D(2): Task Structure Adjustment Scale PART 11
Training and Experience Adjustment NOTE.- Do not adjust jobs with a Part I score of 6 or below.
a.
Compared to others in this or similar positions, how much training has the leader had?
3
2
1
0
No training
@ery little
A moderate amount
A great
deal
at all
b.
training
of training
of training
Compared to others in this or similar positions, how much experience has the leader had?
6
No experience
4
Very little
2
A moderate amount
A great
0
at all
experience
ofexperience
of
deal
experience
Add lines a and b of the training and experience adjustment, then subtract this from the subtotal on the previous page.
Subtotal from previous page
Training and experience adjustment
Total Task Structure Score
248
Leadership in Organizations
BOX 13-E: Position Power Rating Scale (PP)
Circle the number which best represents your answer.
1.
Cantheleaderdirectlyorbyrecommendationadministerrewardsandpunishmentstohissubor
dinates?
2
Can act directly or
can recommend with
high effectiveness
2.
Can recommend but
with mixed results
0
No
Doestheleaderhavetheknowledgenecessarytoassigntaskstosubordinatesandinstructthemin task
completion?
2
Yes
4.
Can recommend but
with mixed results
Can the leader directly or by recommendation affect the promotion, demotion, hiring or firing
of his subordinates?
2
Can act directly or
can recommend with
high effectiveness
3.
0
No
Sometimes or in
some aspects
0
No
lsittheleader'sjobtoevaluatetheperformanceofhissubordinates?
2
0
Yes
5.
Sometimes or in
some aspects
No
Has the leader been given some official title of authority by the organization (e.g., foreman,
department head, platoon leader)?
2
0
Yes
No
Total
Leadership and Organizational Outcomes
249
BOX 13-F: Situational Favorableness Scale
Enter the total scores for the Leader-Member Relations scale, the Task Structure Scale (including
training and experience adjustment), and the Position Power Scale in the spaces below. Add the
three scores together and look up the total on the table below to determine overall situational
favorableness.
Leader-Member Relations Total
Task Structure Total
Position Power Total
Total Score
Amount of
Situational
Favorableness
Grand Total
51-70
Favorable
31-50
10-30
Moderate
Unfavorable
to the left and the most unfavorable circumstances to the right. Looking at the figure, it is obvious that a leader will find very
favorable a situation where there are good relations with subordinates, the task is clear and programmed for all, and the
position provides great latitude for administering rewards and punishments (Octant I). In Octant VIII on the other hand, where
leader-member relations are poor, the task unstructured, and the leader's power is weak, the level of control and influence is
small and thus the situation would be very unfavorable for the leader. Octants IV, V, and VI fall in the mid-range and have
been classified as moderately favorable." (The range of situational favorableness scale scores from Box 13-F is also shown.)
250
Leadership in Organizations
Figurel3-9. RelativeEffectivenessofHighandLowLPCLeaders!nDifferentSituations
With leader personality characteristics (LPC) and situational variables now identified, the question that remains is how these
two factors are related to leader effectiveness.
Leader Style, Situation, and Effectiveness Contingencies. In testing the Contingency Model, Fiedler found that certain types
of leaders performed relatively effectively in some situations and relatively ineffectively in others. Specifically, task-motivated
(low LPC) leaders were found to perform better than relationship-motivated (high LPC) leaders in very favorable or very
unfavorable situations. On the other hand, relationship-motivated (high LPC) leaders performed better than task-motivated
(low LPC) leaders in situations of moderate favorableness. Figure 13-9 portrays the relationships between LPC and leader effectiveness as affected by
the favorableness of the situation. (This figure is a simplified schematic of the actual model developed by Fiedler.)
It is important to note here that the effectiveness curves only represent relative values. That is, in both the favorable and
unfavorable situations the low LPC leader is found to perform better than the high LPC leader. This does not mean, however,
that the low LPC leader performs as well in the unfavorable situation as in the favorable. Nevertheless, given a situation which
is unfavorable for the leader (and not amenable to change) the low LPC leader will perform better according to
Leadership and Organizational Outcomes
251
Note: These descriptions reflect the behavior and performance typical of high and low LPC leaders.
Figurel3-10. SummaryofLeadershipMotivation,BehaviorandPerformanceAcrossSituations
Fiedler's findings.
A large number of validation studies have been conducted on the Contingency Model hypothesis. While most of them have
supported the basic model to some degree, only three have dealt with the full range of situational favorableness-that is, all eight
octants. Others have conducted only partial tests of the model by dealing with selected octants. One well-controlled
experiment using cadets at the United States Military Academy tested the entire range of situational favorableness.
Leader-member relations were determined in advance, and the groups were assembled and given tasks of varied structure to
accomplish. Based upon the LPC scores of designated leaders of these groups and the performance ratings of the groups, the
study essentially duplicated the original Contingency Model findings.'
Fiedler has speculated as to the reason behind these repeated findings. Figure 13-10 is an attempt to summarize one
hypothesis concerning the intricate relationship existing in the model between leader motivation,
252
behavior and performance as they pertain to various situations." Based on the hierarchy of motives (see Figure 13-7), Fiedler
suggests that subtle changes in leader behavior account for the differences in group performance shown in Figure 13-10.
Although some evidence exists to support this hypothesis, accounting for the results obtained by testing the theory remains
perhaps the weakest part of the contingency explanation.
implications of the Contingency Model Approach for Leadership. Perhaps the most important implication of the model
shown in Figure 13-9 is that both taskmotivated and relationship-motivated leaders can perform well-but under different
situations. To readers who have practical leadership experience, this may reinforce their own observations that leaders are
generally more effective in some types of situations than in others. For example, excellent production-line supervisors do not
necessarily make excellent marketing managers. Likewise, good field commanders do not necessarily perform as well in the
supervision of staff personnel. The Contingency Model specifically predicts what kind of leader will be more effective in what
kind of situation.
Another major implication of the Contingency Model is that the leader's effectiveness is as much a result of the particular
situation as it is of the particular leader's characteristics. According to Fiedler, therefore, the effectiveness of organizations
can be improved by one of two ways: the organization can attempt to change the leader's style (using customary leadership
development techniques) or it can alter the situational favorableness for the leader by modifying one or more of the three
situational subdimensions (leaving the leader's style alone). As we have discussed previously, changing leader style is
difficult at best, and perhaps impossible in that it involves altering some of the basic underpinnings of the individual's
personality. Such personality change requires time, expert training, and intensive programs. According to the model, the
more reasonable alternative may be to change certain situational factors to be more in consonance with the leader's styleengineering the job to fit the leader's style. Fiedler points out that although this may seem counter-intuitive at first, it is
actually more plausible and practical than one might think. In fact, organizations have undertaken such situational
orchestrations all along. When a certain unit or work group experiences serious interpersonal problems, for instance, one
solution is to change the compoLeadership in Organizations
sition of the group. From the leader's viewpoint we have, in fact, altered the situation, perhaps increasing the chance for
improved leader-member relations. By following contingency model relationships, we make such changes based on research
that defines these relationships rather than by guesswork or intuition.
Another observation concerning organizational life is that leadership situations usually do not remain static-they change over
time. Consequently, as the situational dimensions change leaders may find their performance changing accordingly. The
Contingency Model accounts for such change in performance. As the composition of groups change, tasks become more or
less structured, or position power changes I a leader with a given style may also be more or less suited for the leadership
situation. According to the model, an appropriate change in leadership may be in order.
Another interesting implication of Fiedler's model concerns leader training. Leadership training has long been a major focus
in the area of leadership and management. The results of studies on training leaders, however, have been disappointing.
Reviews of the leadership training literature indicate that research results do not support the premise that a leader, once trained,
will be a better leader. These reviews have shown that most training programs merely try to change the leader in some way
without taking into account the indirect effects of the leadership training programs on group performance, or subordinate
motivation and satisfaction." The Contingency Model offers a nontraditional approach to the analysis of leader training.
Research results have shown that the effect of leadership training and experience depends upon the interaction of the leader's
motivational pattern (LPC) and the degree to which the leadership situation is favorable.' Leadership training, therefore, can be
considered not as changing the leader, but rather as improving the leader's control and influence-that is, situational
favorableness." Thus, if training increases the situational favorableness for the leader, it should differentially affect the
performance of high and low LPC leaders. According to the Contingency Model, therefore, training may actually decrease
performance. For example, if a high LPC leader who is presently doing well in a moderately favorable situation were to
receive human relations training, that training should accelerate the improvement of leader-member relations (see the effect of
such training
Leadership and Organizational Outcomes
on the questionnaire in Box 13-C). This improvement could alter the favorableness of the situation (raise the situational
favorableness score, Box 13-F) to the point where the high LPC leader's performance would be less than that of a low LPC
leader. The same type of examples could be made for low LPC leaders. Specifically, leadership training can directly affect
both leader-member interactions and the relative structure of the task. As a result, the leader's performance can change for
better or worse, depending on whether the situation shifts from the less favorable to the more favorable end of the continuum.
This hypothesis has been supported by a number of studies." The conclusion to be drawn from this analysis, of course, is that
we should train some leaders and avoid training others-depending on the situational favorableness for the leader.
Other considerations of the Contingency Model include the introduction of leader intelligence as a moderating variable for
situational favorableness. As was discussed earlier in this chapter, some leadership traits, to include leader intelligence, have
been shown to have a marginal relationship to leader performance. The Contingency Model offers an explanation. Again,
instead of viewing the leader's intelligence as a leader variable which directly affects performance, new approaches have
integrated intelligence as a variable that modifies the leader's experience and hence the favorableness of the situation."
Experience can be viewed as a barrage of information that must be properly assimilated, organized, structured, and
categorized in order to be useful to the leader. This organizing and structuring requires intelligence. In effect, an interaction
of intelligence and experience provides a form of on-the-job training. More intelligent leaders, therefore, ought to make
better use of their experience than leaders with relatively less intelligence. In Contingency Model terms, intelligence allows
the leader to increase control and influence over the situation. Given this analysis, what difference would it make if you
assigned a more (or less) intelligent leader to a task? What outcomes would you predict for different LPC leaders in relation
to level of intelligence based on the impact of intelligence on situational favorableness?
A final implication of the model involves leader selection and rotation. This is especially critical for the military where
personnel are constantly selected for varying jobs, and where rotation is a fact of life. Getting the right person for the right
job is not an easy task. Situations change for the leader: what is challenging today can be
2
5
3
boring tomorrow, not because the leader has changed, but because the situational favorableness has changed. Fiedler
suggests that leaders can be more effectively selected for a given job based upon a description of the favorableness of the
situation and the leader's LPC score. For example, a job described as moderately favorable for an experienced or trained leader
(according to the model) is likely to be unfavorable for an inexperienced, untrained leader. For the latter the selection of a
task-motivated (low LPC) leader would be most appropriate for short-term success whereas a relationship-motivated (high
LPC) leader would perform best in the former (moderately favorable) situation." Further, according to the Contingency Model,
once people are selected, they should not stay on the job forever. Longterm success may not be the same as short-term success.
We hear it said that people "burn out." Some people, in fact, do require constant challenges and seem to thrive on changes
whereas others seem to need consistency and structure. Standardized rotation policies (such as exist in the military) may be
dysfunctional based on Contingency Model findings. Unit transfers and reassignment of superiors have been shown to affect
the leader's behavior and performance differently depending upon their motivational system as described by their LPC score . 51
The Contingency Model is a complex theory of leadership process. The model is not without criticism, however. In fact,
more controversy has been generated over Contingency Model predictions than most other leadership theories. The most
controversial aspect of the model has to do with the interpretation of the LPC score. An understanding of LPC is critical since
LPC is one of the two main concepts in the formulation of the model. Defined as a personality characteristic in the earliest
studies and reinterpreted now as a measure of the leader's motivational structure, the exact interpretation of the LPC score
remains uncertain. One study concluded that it is questionable whether LPC even measures a motivational goal hierarchy since
the review could only find support for the primary need in the motivational hypothesis." Numerous alternative explanations
have been offered, but none have received any extensive testing." The uncertainty of the meaning of the LPC score remains.
Another major criticism has centered around the classification of the various studies into the eight octants of the model. The
splits of the situational favorableness
254
dimension (LM, TS, PP) into two categories, high and low, may be oversimplified. Many validation studies have not used
the original task structure and position power scales developed by Fiedler and others. just how comparable these studies may
be remains open to question.
The behavior of leaders is assumed based upon an individual's LPC score. As we already suggested in the discussion of
Figure 13-10, there is little empirical support that specifically identifies the appropriate leader behavior for high and low LPC
leaders in the varying situations. Yet, it is obvious that the LPC score relates to leader effectiveness only through the nature
of the leader's specific behaviors. This needs further refinement and research.
The results of studies on the Contingency Model are mixed and sometimes contradictory. Despite the mixed research
findings the Contingency Model still offers a major theoretical model which has generated an unusual level of interest.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN PERSPECTIVE
[Return to the Table of Contents]
As we suggested earlier in this chapter there were actually two major schools of thought concerning leadership which
developed simultaneously. To this point we have concentrated mainly on theory and research stemming from the Ohio State
perspecive of leadership. Independent and parallel research was being conducted at the University of Michigan, where they
too were attempting to identify clusters of effective leader behavior. Their studies also revealed two distinct leader behavior
dimensions very similar to the Ohio State dimensions of initiating structure and consideration. At Michigan, these were
called job-centered and employee-centered leadership behaviors. Numerous studies were conducted incorporating both sets
of leader behaviors in training programs for managers. Here too the results revealed that both sets of behaviors improved
productivity. However, groups subjected to employee-centered leader behaviors were also found to be more cohesive, more
satisfied, and to have less turn-over and absenteeism. The opposite was true for groups which reported job-centered leader
behaviors."
Studies by Rensis Likert and his associates at the University of Michigan led to the hypothesis that any consideration of the
effects of various leader behaviors on organizational outcomes must take into account the complex interrelated and
interacting characteristics of
Leadership in Organizations
organizations-the whole system." These researchers concluded that the various structural, behavioral and attitudinal parts of an
organization are fundamentally interdependent and that any unidimensional changes by leaders would not likely be very
successful. Likert classified organizations on a leadership continuum from very autocratic (System 1) to participative (System
4). System 1, Exploitive Authoritative, describes organizations which are controlled and directed at the very top. Influence
and communication are mostly downward. The primary motivational forces within the organization are fear, money and status.
System 2, Benevolent Authoritative, is somewhat less authoritarian. Control and direction are still at the top, but lower level
delegation is allowed. Influence and communication are mostly downward although some input is allowed from below.
System 3, Consultative, is a major adjustment in organizational philosophy. Only broad policies are made at the top and many
decisions originate at lower levels. Influence and communication are both upward and downward as well as lateral.
Motivational forces tap money and status as well as many other ego needs of individuals. System 4, Participative Group, is the
most democratic of all. Decisions are made throughout the organization with maximum input from all sources and all levels.
A great deal of cooperative teamwork exists and all major motives, except fear, are tapped. Goal setting is established by group
participation. Satisfaction levels are high at all points in the organization." Likert describes his System 4 as the most effective
pattern of leadership in use in American business. However, he finds that few organizations actually achieve it; most lie
between System 2 and 3. Likert does not conceptualize System 4 as the ultimate form of organization. It represents only the
present stage of leadership knowledge. Additional systems may be described as new research advances the knowledge of
leadership practices in organizations. From the Michigan perspective of leadership a number of approaches to effective
leadership have been developed-all focused on improving employee-centered behaviors or climate within an organization. We
will delay discussion of several of these means of addressing the leadership problem until Chapter 19, when we will address the
subjects of organizational change, adaptation, and development. Suffice it to note at this point that Likert and those who
followed his line of research have often been criticized for concentrating on employee-centered behaviors of the leader at
Leadership and Organizational Outcomes
2
5
5
POLLOW f WEI@L ? AIZE141T 60;ZC- rl,%
AS
'-;OOt4 AS
rzoit4r:p To
COMES LJP
FOLLOW
Him
'p
0
HE
King Features Syndicate, Inc. 1978. World rights reserved.
the expense of job-centered behaviors. As a result they have been accused of being overly permissive in their prescriptions for
effective leadership. In reality, their approach is not void of concern for job-centered behaviors. Instead, the assumption is
made that job-centered behaviors are automatically taken care of by the nature and demands of the organization. On the other
hand, those who follow Likert's lead feel that emphasis on the employee-centered dimension cannot be assumed.
SUMMARY
[Return to the Table of Contents]
The theoretical study of leadership has made major advances in the last thirty years. This has been largely due to the numerous
theoretical frameworks and well-designed research studies developed by current researchers. Now that we have reviewed the
major categories of leadership research, some answers to the questions asked in the introduction to this chapter can be sug-
YOU c-OltJ&
TO FOLLOW
Him ?
gested. Contrary to the earliest thinking-, leadership does not appear to be something with which we are born. Instead, there
appears to be a network of ideas and concepts that explain the developmental nature of the leadership process. Certain views
of leadership have been advanced that can provide tools for actually improving one's leadership capabilities. Salient individual
and environmental factors have been identified that help explain the complex interaction of variables in the leadership process.
Our review of the major approaches to the study of leadership-trait, behavior, situational, and contingency-make it apparent
that there is no generally accepted approach to the study of leadership. Rather, each theory seems to add a unique dimension to
be considered. Figure 13-11 portrays one conceptual framework by which the various theories can be classified. We can
schematically see how the theories we have discussed are related in terms of what major variables they utilize.
Figurel3-11. ACategorizationofMajorLeadersh!pTheories
256
Another way to view these relationships is to identify the many specific variables incorporated in analyzing the leadership
process. Figure 13-12 summarizes these variables as they may be incorporated into the schematic representation introduced at
the beginning of this chapter (Figure 13-1). This figure identifies the important factors that have been considered by behavioral
scientists and practicing leaders. They include:
1.
Situational Variables-aspects of the situation.
a.
Task characteristics such as ambiguity, structure, clarity and difficulty.
b.
Group characteristics such as maturity level, group structure (in, out, middle), subordinate factors, and leadermember relations.
c.
Organizational characteristics such as position power, rules and procedures and climate.
d.
External situational variables such as environmental uncertainty (IA).
Personal Attributes-aspects of the leader.
a.
Characteristics of the individual such as needs, motives, personality traits, experience and intelligence.
b.
Leadership styles: task-motivated (low LPC) and
2.
Leadership in Organizations
3.
4.
relationship-motivated (high LPC).
Leader Behavior-aspects of the leader's actions.
a.
Initiating structure and consideration.
b.
Instrumental, supportive, participative and achievement-oriented behavior.
c.
Employee versus job-centered behaviors.
Organizational outcomes-the end-product of leading.
a.
Leader effectiveness.
b.
Group performance.
c.
Subordinate satisfaction and motivation.
d.
Organization effectiveness.
In considering all of the major theoretical approaches, the application to the practicing leader appears to come in the form of
development of the skills necessary to diagnose and evaluate the numerous factors involved in the leadership process.
Understanding the changing levels of maturity of subordinates and how this relates to leader behavior allows the leader to
adapt his or her behavior accordingly to maximize the performance of subordinates by meeting their expectations.
Figure 13-12. Summary of Variables in the Leadership Process
Leadership and Organizational Outcomes
It is also beneficial to realize that leaders cannot always deal with subordinates as a group; and that they must be handled
individually so that proper role expectations can be established. It then follows that the ability to diagnose what role
differentiation is best with which subordinates is also a critical factor in success as a leader. By clarifying and defining the
paths available to the subordinate for reaching goals, the leader may promote better motivation, satisfaction, and performance.
Finally, by accurately diagnosing the situation as to the leader-member relations, task structure, and power to reward and
punish, leaders should be able to either orchestrate these aspects of the situation to fit their style or to seek a job where their
leader style and situation are a match. Often, an organization can do this much more effectively for its leaders than can the
leaders for themselves. Organizations have control over selection and rotation and therefore can establish the optimum match
between leader and situation. Much remains to be learned; but the theoretical approaches to leadership and the research done
over the past thirty years have given us new knowledge with which to unravel some of the mysteries of the leadership process.
ASSESS YOUR UNDERSTANDING
[Return to the Table of Contents]
1.
"He is a born leader!" Discuss this statement in light of what we know about leadership concepts.
2.
What leadership traits, if any, have been shown to be related to leader effectiveness? Does the literature on leader traits
support or reject predictability of leader effectiveness?
3.
What major contribution was made by the Ohio State and University of Michigan studies to the leadership research
literature?
4.
What is the difference between the leadership style described in the Contingency Model and leader behaviors as
described in the Ohio State studies?
5.
How could Vertical Dyad Linkage theory be incorporated in the Contingency Model, Path-Goal approach or Situational Leadership theory to add to leader effectiveness?
257
6.
Compare and contrast Contingency Model " situational favorableness" dimension, Path-Goal "situational factors" and
Situational Leadership
group maturity."
7.
Discuss some of the implications and extensions of the Contingency Model of Leadership.
8.
How can an organization engineer the situation to fit the leader's style?
ENDNOTES
'Vroom, V. H., "Leadership," in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, ed. Dunnette, M.D. (Chicago:
Rand McNally College Publishing Co., 1976).
'Reprinted and adapted from Leadership and Decision-Making by Victor H. Vroom and Philip W. Yetton by permission of
the University of Pittsburgh Press. @1973 by University of Pittsburgh Press.
'Stogdill, R. M., "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature," Journal of Psychology, (1948),
25, pp. 35-71.
4
Mann, R.D., "A Review of the Relationship Between Personality and Performance in Small Groups," Psychological
Bulletin, (1959), 56, pp. 241-270.
5Stogdill, R.M., Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory
and Research (New York: Free Press, 1974).
'Ibid,, p. 81.
'House R.J. and M.L. Baetz, "Leadership: Some Empirical Generalizations and New Research Directions," in Research in
Organizational Behavior, ed. Barry M. Staw (Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press, Inc., 1979), pp. 352, 400.
'Fleishman, E.A. and Peters, D.R., "Interpersonal Values, Leadership Attitudes, and Managerial Success," Personal
Psychology, (1962), 15, pp. 127-143.
'Halpin, A.W., Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (Columbus: OSU Bureau of Business Research,
1957).
"Halpin. A.W. and Winer, B J., The Leadership Behavior of the Airplane Commander (Columbus: OSC Research
Foundation, 1952).
"Halpin, A.W., "The Leadership Behavior and Combat Performance ofairplane Commanders,"JournalofAppliedSocial
Psychology, (I 954), 49, pp. 19-22.
"Rush, C. H., "Leader Behavior and Group Characteristics," in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement, eds.
Stogdill, R. M. and A. E. Coons (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1957).
258
"Fleishman, E.A., "A Leader Behavior Description for Industry," in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement, eds.
Stogdill, R.M. and A.E. Coons (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1957).
"Dawson, J. E.; Messe, L. A.; and J. L. Phillips, " Effect of Instr-uctor-Leader Behavior on Student Performance," journal
ofAppliedPsychology, (1972), 56, pp. 369-376.
15Csoka, L.S., "The Effects of Organizational and Group Climate on Small Group Performance," Unpublished Dissertation,
University of Washington, 1972; and Bons, P.M., "The Effect of Changes in Leadership Environment on the Behavior of
Relationship-and-Task-Motivated Leaders," Unpublished Dissertation, University of Washington, 1974, p. 39.
"Stogdill, R. M., Handbook of Leadership, p. 14 1.
1 7Blake, R.R. and J.H. Mouton, The Managerial Grid
(Houston: Gulf Publishing Co., 1964).
"Hersey, P. and K. H. Blanchard, Management of Organizational Behavior, 4th edition (Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: PrenticeHall,
Inc., 1982), pp. 149-175.
"Ibid., p. 157.
"Ibid., p. 159. 211bid.
22
Cashman, J. and Graen, G., "The Nature of Leadership in the Vertical Dyad: The Team Building Process,"
Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, 1976; Graen, G. and Cashman, J., "A Role Making Model
of Leadership in Formal Organizations: A Developmental Approach," Leadership Frontiers, eds. Hunt, J.G. and L.L.
Larsen(Kent, Ohio: KentStateUniversityPress, 1975).
"Graen and Cashman, op. cit.
"Caine, B.T., "Role Making and the Assumption of Leadership," in A Study of Organizational Leadership, ed. Assoc. of
OML (Harrisburg: Stackpole Books, 1976).
2ICashman, J.R and N.S. Bruning, Leader Behavior Causes Performance: A Review and Longitudinal Study, University of
Alabama, 1980.
26 Graen and Cashman, op. cit., p. 150.
2'House, Rj., "A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness," Administrative Science Quarterly, (I 971), 16, pp. 321-338.
"Evans, M.G., "The Effects of Supervisor Behavior on the Path-Goal Relationship," Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, (1970), 5, pp. 277-298.
2'House, Rj. and T.R. Mitchell, "Path-Goal Theory of Leadership," Journal of Conte?nporary Business, (1974), 3, pp. 81-97.
"Ibid. 3IJbid.
"House and Baetz, op. cit., p. 386.
"Mitchell, TR., "Motivation and Participation: An Integration," Academy of Managementjournal, (1 973), 16, pp. 160179.
Leadership in Organizations
"Schuler, R.S., "Participation with Supervisor and Subordinate Authoritarianism: A Path-Goal Theory Reconciliation,"
AdministrativeScience Quarterly, (1976), 21, pp. 320-325.
15 House & Mitchell, op. cit.
"Wexley, K. N. and G.A. Yukl, Organizational Behavior and Personnel Psychology (Homewood, Ill.: Erwin Pub. Co.,
1977).
"House & Mitchell, op. cit.
"House and Baetz, op. cit.
"Fiedler, F. E., A Theory ofleadership Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967).
"Fiedler, F.E., "A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness," Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. L.
Berkowitz (Academic Press, 1964).
4'Rice, R.W, "Psychometric Properties of the Esteem for Least Preferred Coworker (LPC)," Academy ofmanagement Review,
(1978), 3, pp. 106-118.
4'Ibid., p. 108.
4'Fiedler, F. E., "The Continency Model: New Directions for Leadership Utilization," Journal of Contemporary Business,
(1974), pp. 65-79.
4'The subscales (Box B,C,D,E, and F) and taken from Fiedler, F.E., L. Mahar and M.M. Chemers, Leadermatch
IVProgrammed Instruction in Leadership for the U.S. Army, Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington, 1977.
"Fiedler, F.E., "Validation and Extension of the Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness: A Review of Empirical
Findings," Psychological Bulletin, (1971), 76, pp. 128148.
41
Chemers, M. M. and G J. Skrzypek, "Experimental Test of the Contingency Model of Leadership
Effectiveness,"JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology, (1972), 24, pp. 172-177.
4'Adapted from Fiedler, Mahar and Chemers, op. cit., P. 146.
'Stogdill, R.M., Handbook of Leadership, 1974; Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E. III, and K.E. Weick, Jr.
Managerial Behavior, Performance, and Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970).
'Fiedler, RE., "The Contingency Model: New Directions for Leadership Utilization," Journal of Contemporary Business,
(1974), p. 72.
"Fiedler, RE., "Leadership Experience and Leader Performance-Another Hypothesis Shot to Hell," Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, (I 9 70), 5, pp. 1- 1 4.
"Csoka, L.S. and F.E. Fiedler, "The Effect of Military Leadership Training: A Test of the Contingency Model,"
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, (I 972), 8, pp, 395407; Fiedler, F.E.; Bons, P.M. and L.L. Hastings, "New
Strategies for Leadership Utilization," Measurement of Human Resources, eds. Singleton, WT and P. Spurgeon (New York:
Halsted Press, 1975), pp. 233-244; Chemers, M.M. et al., "Leader LPG, Training and Effectiveness: An Experimental
Leadership and Organizational Outcomes
Examination," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (1975), p. 31,
5ICsoka, L.S., "A Relationship Between Leader Intelligence and Leader Rated Effectiveness," Journal ofapplied Psychology,
(1974), 59, pp. 43-47.
"Fiedler, F. E., "The Contingency Model: New Directions for Leadership Utilization," journal of Contemporary Business,
(1974), p. 78.
14
Bons, P.M. and F.E. Fiedler, "Change in Organizational Leadership and the Behavior of Relationship-and-TaskMotivated Leaders," Administrative Sciences Quarterly, (I 976), 2 1, pp. 453-473.
"Schmidt, D.E., "The Least-Preferred Coworker (LPC) Measure: A Review and Reinterpretation of the Research,"
Unpublished manuscript. University of Washington, 1976.
16MitChell, TR., "Cognitive Complexity and Leadership Style,"Journal ofpersonality and Social Psychology, (I 970), 16, pp.
166-173.
"Morse, H. C. and E. Reiner, "The Experimental Change
259
of a Major Organizational Variable," journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, (1956), pp. 120-129.
"Likert, R., New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961).
"'Bowers, D.G., Systems of Organizations: Management of the Human Resource (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan
Press, 1977), pp. 101-107.
ABOUTTHEAUTHOR
Louis S. Csoka (Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army) is a Professor of Psychology and Leadership on the faculty of the
Department of Behavorial Sciences and Leadership at the United States Military Academy, West Point, New York. He
received his B.S. from the United States Military Academy (I 965) and his M.S. and Ph.D. in Social Psychology from the
University of Washington (I 972). He is a graduate of the Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas,
and has commanded troops in combat.